[Law or Coupang?] ③ Consumer Legal Rights Disappear on Platform
When a product purchased and paid for on Coupang has a problem, how far can consumers resolve it through Coupang? Tracking a children's product that the government ordered recalled as hazardous, we found that identifying the buyer and notifying them of the recall occurred within Coupang, but after that it was "up to the consumer." The statutory withdrawal period set by law differed from Coupang's own return standards, and instead of the original payment method, consumers had to receive refunds by providing their account number to the seller. Through a single recall case, Suwon Ilbo examines over three installments how consumer rights guaranteed by e-commerce law actually operate in large platform systems, why money and personal information move outside the platform in the handling process, and how current law defines platform responsibility. —Editor's Note
While e-commerce law guarantees consumer rights such as withdrawal of offer and refund of payment, the procedures for exercising these rights are being designed by online commerce platforms themselves, raising the possibility that rights guaranteed by law may not function within the platform.
According to the Fair Trade Commission and others on the 23rd, Article 17, Paragraph 3 of the E-commerce Law stipulates that if the contents of goods differ from those advertised or the contract is performed differently, consumers can withdraw their offer within three months from the date of receiving the goods, or within 30 days from when they knew or could have known of the fact.
In this recall case, there is a discrepancy between the statutory period and the platform's own standards.
The purchaser had not exceeded three months from receiving the product and had not exceeded 30 days from when they became aware of the safety standard non-compliance. However, on Coupang, the exchange and refund request for the order was impossible because more than 30 days had passed since purchase.
The statutory withdrawal period remained, but the platform's application pathway to exercise it was closed first.
Refunds following withdrawal of offer and the platform's consumer protection obligations are also stipulated in law.
Article 18 of the E-commerce Law stipulates refund obligations for withdrawal of offer, and includes in "telemarketing business operators" those "who received payment for goods from consumers or concluded a contract regarding telemarketing with consumers." In cases where payment is made by credit card, the law stipulates requesting the payment processor to suspend or cancel the charge request.
However, there are interpretations that Articles 17 and 18 may not apply to platforms.
Article 20, Paragraph 3 requires that cyber mall intermediaries promptly take necessary measures, such as identifying causes and damages, to resolve consumer complaints or disputes arising from cyber mall use.
Acts that obstruct consumer withdrawal of offer are also prohibited. Article 21 prohibits informing false or exaggerated facts or obstructing withdrawal of offer or contract termination through deceptive methods, and Article 32 allows the Fair Trade Commission to issue corrective orders including ceasing violations, fulfilling obligations, and preventing and resolving consumer damage when obligations stipulated by law are violated or not performed.
Provisions to protect consumers are already in place, from withdrawal of offer through refunds to dispute resolution by the platform intermediary and corrective measures for legal violations.
The problem is whether rights written into law actually function within the platform's system.
In online transactions, consumers face not legal provisions but exchange and refund buttons displayed in order history. Even if the statutory withdrawal period remains, if the application is impossible on the platform, consumers must separately inquire with customer service or take separate measures through relevant agencies.
While law grants rights to consumers, the reality is that the entrance and pathway for actually exercising those rights are designed by the platform.
Current law allows the FTC to issue corrective measures when violations of obligations or obstruction of withdrawal of offer are confirmed.
However, whether the platform's exchange and refund system itself properly reflects the reasons and periods for withdrawal of offer stipulated by law before consumers raise issues is a separate matter.
In particular, when platforms recognize product problems and can identify target purchasers, as with government recall orders, there are calls for distinguishing from general return standards and reflecting pathways to exercise legal rights in the system.
An FTC official said regarding this case, "In the case of government recalls, it appears to meet the requirements for withdrawal of offer, but since there can be various cases involving payment methods and money flows, we need to verify the exact circumstances," and "we will take action if legal violations are confirmed."